It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 41
65
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf

Originally posted by B.A.C.

What do you mean the system we have works good enough so evolution didn't change it? Evolutionists claim evolution created the system we have.

Yes, I'm aware of what skin is for, I was using that as an analogy


Fair enough about the skin...

Let me see if I can explain... Evolution is driven by random mutations occuring in animals genes that give that animal either an advantage or disadvantage, and which also would either be picked off or selected as being unfit for or being beneficial to that animal. The epiglottis is one of evolutions solutions for improving the system in soft skinned animals, whereas in tougher skinned the windpipe closes down completely when the animal swallows.

Of course neither of these solutions would be necessary if evolution had gotten it 'intelligently right' in the first place and not put the windpipe and oesophagus together in the mouth, so it has worked around it. What we have right now doesn't work as well as it could, but it works, so our species is still around and thriving. I'm sure if humanity survives for long enough we may well see what the next evolution of this system is, if there are pressures to allow the beneficial mutations to take precedence that is.


OK but then why the questions about the appendix and tailbone?

There was no need to remove them. "Evolution would say we didn't evolve a better system because the one we have works adequately enough, and evolution cannot go back and correct it's mistakes" Right?


You've pretty much just hit my problem with creationism and Intelligent Design on the head. Evolution makes mistakes, whereas an Intelligent Creator of All wouldn't. (It's either that or this Creator has a sick, twisted sense of humour)

Our appendix was used for the digestion of tough plant materials once, but we moved on to other food types that didn't need it, so it got smaller (but as you showed me, still had a useful ability, which is probably why it stayed around). I only knew about the digestion of tough plant materials bit.

The tailbone, is, well, why have a 'tail' bone in the first place with ID? A bone that attests that once our ancestors had tails, but then they became useless so shrank into our bodies. Shouldn't there be a bone, but not necessarily one that resembles a vestigial animal tail, doing the job it is doing now?

I guess the point is, whilst evolution allows for vestigial limbs and organs to show up in living creatures right now, the idea that an Intelligent creator made these organisms would seem to mean that there's no need for vestigial anything.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]


OK but don't forget I proved both of them have a current use and a function.

Although as far as the esophagus goes I can't prove my own thoughts correct.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf

Originally posted by JPhish
Any time the "naturalist zealots" would like to acknowledge my posts it would be excellent!

Only one of my posts have been acknowledged by the "naturalist zealots" and my rebuttal to that one response i received*, has been ignored.

You guys must have "selective reading".

Might be because of the statement that you are arguing for the sake of arguing?


Regardless of my motives, my points are still valid. I believe you are wrong and i've shown that it's VERY likely that you are, yet you still persist.

Unlike all the evolutionists in this thread, i'm not relying on a belief system to fight my battles. It appears you can not handle that, so you choose to ignore me.

That's alright, but let it be known that through your disregard of my posts and inability to refute my claims, you’ve exposed your belief system as flawed.


[edit on 3/5/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl


Loser and liar. A worthless troll who hijacked a thread and basically ruined it. I'm a liar? I just copied and pasted your own words loser. Now go ahead and edit the entry. I have a nice screenshot of it though.


Just like I thought you'd do Griff do you remember what YOU said in this thread?

Here let me help you:



Another fine example of your intelligence. In other threads you beg me to hang from your penis and now you slander me with association to known murders and serial killers.


End quote Now for the second time Ill ask you again SHOW ME where I have ever said that to you.

You have failed to do that and yes you are a liar



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 
It's amazing how quick evolutionist backtrack on other evolutionist,astronomer's claim the big bang as the likley start for the "natural evolutionary process of the universe" without it you wouldn't have the chemical building blocks for biological evolution,just because you can no longer defend it doesn't let you ignore the doctrine,that wasn't even a good try.We (my friends & i) were raised as agnostics,it was the inability of our univ. proffessors (who were very good at teaching the mathmatics of astronomy & astrophysics,mathmatics which eventually proved the existince of dark matter & it's relevance to the measurements of space & time.)to rectify the math with their estimates of the age of the universe,the age of the earth,the establishment of the necessary biological & chemical properties & elements that make evloution viable,it was their math that has led me & others to the knowledge of the creator. When their lies were exposed the truth became obvious.If you knew anything you would know you can't dance around the math,as disingenious as your attempts are they only prove my point.BTW,the infinite universe theory has been dead for years,& string theory is hemoraging massive amounts of it's life blood on the table of mathmatics(again refer to dark matter).Do your own research on the math, since you're an evolutionist & too determined not to give up on your religion i doubt if it will help you as it did us,but it will certainly frustrate & piss you off or leave you babling the same nonsense you have been,either way you're still wrong. You really don't understand the magnitude of the numbers do you?Well cheer up skippy,at least we find your post entertaining.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
reply to post by jfj123
 
It's amazing how quick evolutionist backtrack on other evolutionist,astronomer's claim the big bang as the likley start for the "natural evolutionary process of the universe" without it you wouldn't have the chemical building blocks for biological evolution,just because you can no longer defend it doesn't let you ignore the doctrine,that wasn't even a good try.We (my friends & i) were raised as agnostics,it was the inability of our univ. proffessors (who were very good at teaching the mathmatics of astronomy & astrophysics,mathmatics which eventually proved the existince of dark matter & it's relevance to the measurements of space & time.)to rectify the math with their estimates of the age of the universe,the age of the earth,the establishment of the necessary biological & chemical properties & elements that make evloution viable,it was their math that has led me & others to the knowledge of the creator. When their lies were exposed the truth became obvious.If you knew anything you would know you can't dance around the math,as disingenious as your attempts are they only prove my point.BTW,the infinite universe theory has been dead for years,& string theory is hemoraging massive amounts of it's life blood on the table of mathmatics(again refer to dark matter).Do your own research on the math, since you're an evolutionist & too determined not to give up on your religion i doubt if it will help you as it did us,but it will certainly frustrate & piss you off or leave you babling the same nonsense you have been,either way you're still wrong. You really don't understand the magnitude of the numbers do you?Well cheer up skippy,at least we find your post entertaining.



Starred.

.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I think I might get back to where I left off.


Many theories are touted as fact, yet they are being constantly revised.


I’m sure someone’s already explained this to you but it’s very rarely seen you actually listening to what we have to say so let me explain science in simple terms.

You made a good example – “20 years ago it was touted as fact that there were 109 - Now we've discovered 6 more.”

It was fact then and it still is now it’s just the fact has adopted new observable data. The new data didn’t stop what was fact 20 years ago from still being the same data it was then. It’s still is fact those 109 elements are still elements - nothing has changed, only more elements have been observed so the fact/data has just expanded/updated to accommodated to the observable data – the new elements.

Facts change when new data is collected, makes sense? A fact can only be so much according to what we can observe and test. A fact can never be complete and utter 100% truth because a fact is just an observation of what we perceive and analyse, and what we perceive and analyse is just a highly intelligent conclusive guess. (That guess is what got us to the moon and built your computer and your car etc) When something becomes fact one day it can alter the next day according to the new information gathered.

To say something is absolute 100% fact in science would mean it can never be disproven or change no matter what new information is gathered. That’s not what science in the first place and can never be, because science is falsifiable.

en.wikipedia.org...

Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term "Testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.
Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by jfj123
 


Read the pages I link to, your figures are all wrong and very unreasonable.

christiananswers.net...





Or yours are

Can you find a source that isn't the christian answers page?


What difference would THAT make? The information is out there and I have seen you use links to Darwinists websites also doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
What difference would THAT make? The information is out there and I have seen you use links to Darwinists websites also doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered


For you I would have to say obviously none.
Thanks



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I think I might get back to where I left off.


Many theories are touted as fact, yet they are being constantly revised.


I’m sure someone’s already explained this to you but it’s very rarely seen you actually listening to what we have to say so let me explain science in simple terms.

You made a good example – “20 years ago it was touted as fact that there were 109 - Now we've discovered 6 more.”

It was fact then and it still is now it’s just the fact has adopted new observable data. The new data didn’t stop what was fact 20 years ago from still being the same data it was then. It’s still is fact those 109 elements are still elements - nothing has changed, only more elements have been observed so the fact/data has just expanded/updated to accommodated to the observable data – the new elements.

Facts change when new data is collected, makes sense? A fact can only be so much according to what we can observe and test. A fact can never be complete and utter 100% truth because a fact is just an observation of what we perceive and analyse, and what we perceive and analyse is just a highly intelligent conclusive guess. (That guess is what got us to the moon and built your computer and your car etc) When something becomes fact one day it can alter the next day according to the new information gathered.

To say something is absolute 100% fact in science would mean it can never be disproven or change no matter what new information is gathered. That’s not what science in the first place and can never be, because science is falsifiable.

en.wikipedia.org...

Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term "Testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.
Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.


I already addressed this earlier:


Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by griffinrl


How many elements are there in the period table? 20 years ago it was touted as fact that there were 109. Now we've discovered 6 more.


So the 109 elements in the table weren't facts because more were discovered? Was it stated absolutely that no other elements would be found?

Maybe I misread your statement and you're saying that data can always be revised with new input? I think that's what you're saying but correct me if I'm wrong

This one I agree with you on.



The first mammals were said as a fact to have evolved 155 million years ago. Now science claims it was more like 200 million years ago.


[edit on 5-3-2009 by griffinrl]


Actually I was wrong about 6 more, it's 9 more as of this date.

There is controversy about whether some of the elements are indeed fact.



en.wikipedia.org...
"The first transuranium element (element with atomic number greater than 92) discovered was neptunium in 1940. As of August 2007, only the elements up to 111, roentgenium, have been confirmed as valid by IUPAC, while more or less reliable claims have been made for synthesis of elements 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 and 118."


More or less reliable claims? I don't consider "more or less" a fact.

Yup, I do believe data can always be updated as we learn more. That's why we have to be careful with what we call a fact.


I like good ole' fashioned facts. Like it's a fact I'm typing this right now. You can't falsify or add to that. It's a fact I'm still typing.

I'm curious how old you are? Not that it means much, but, I became more critical of science as I progressed in age.

I studied evolution in university and my professors weren't convincing enough either. Don't assume I haven't read up on it, or that I haven't viewed your vids and your posts.



[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Any time the "naturalist zealots" would like to acknowledge my posts it would be excellent!

Only one of my posts have been acknowledged by the "naturalist zealots" and my rebuttal to that one response i did get, has been ignored.

You guys must have "selective reading".


I wouldn't want to debate you either JPHISH!

You're too damn good at it and perhaps that is why they don't. I was hoping Noobfundie would try but he is probably off learning to spell CAT and DOG. Anyway, I hope you get someone who has "evolved" the cahonies to step up to the Darwittless pump soon



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
reply to post by jfj123
 
It's amazing how quick evolutionist backtrack on other evolutionist,astronomer's claim the big bang as the likley start for the "natural evolutionary process of the universe" without it you wouldn't have the chemical building blocks for biological evolution,just because you can no longer defend it doesn't let you ignore the doctrine,that wasn't even a good try.We (my friends & i) were raised as agnostics,it was the inability of our univ. proffessors (who were very good at teaching the mathmatics of astronomy & astrophysics,mathmatics which eventually proved the existince of dark matter & it's relevance to the measurements of space & time.)to rectify the math with their estimates of the age of the universe,the age of the earth,the establishment of the necessary biological & chemical properties & elements that make evloution viable,it was their math that has led me & others to the knowledge of the creator. When their lies were exposed the truth became obvious.If you knew anything you would know you can't dance around the math,as disingenious as your attempts are they only prove my point.BTW,the infinite universe theory has been dead for years,& string theory is hemoraging massive amounts of it's life blood on the table of mathmatics(again refer to dark matter).Do your own research on the math, since you're an evolutionist & too determined not to give up on your religion i doubt if it will help you as it did us,but it will certainly frustrate & piss you off or leave you babling the same nonsense you have been,either way you're still wrong. You really don't understand the magnitude of the numbers do you?Well cheer up skippy,at least we find your post entertaining.



Starred.

.



Likewise BAC and every bit of it worth quoting



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

I like good ole' fashioned facts. Like it's a fact I'm typing this right now. You can't falsify or add to that. It's a fact I'm still typing.


You can't falsify that because it’s not a scientific fact. It’s a fact right now I’m in my house watching tv but that is not a scientific fact. Please tell me you understand the difference.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

I like good ole' fashioned facts. Like it's a fact I'm typing this right now. You can't falsify or add to that. It's a fact I'm still typing.


You can't falsify that because it’s not a scientific fact. It’s a fact right now I’m in my house watching tv but that is not a scientific fact. Please tell me you understand the difference.


Of course I understand the difference, I understand that facts are really just observations in science, until scientists observe something different that proves them facts incorrect, then they revise or add to the theory, I really do.

That's why I have a problem with it.

Look at your signature, look at it, is it a fact your grandfather's nephew is in NATO? Yes it is (unless he isn't LOL). Should you have to qualify that by saying it's Unscientific Fact? Then change it.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

until scientists observe something different that proves them facts incorrect


The facts/data is not proven incorrect – nothing is 100% proven. You have to look into mathematics to find complete proof.


then they revise or add to the theory


revise or add to the – data/fact collected. Scientific facts and scientific theories are two different things.


That's why I have a problem with it.


You have a problem with science being science???


Should you have to qualify that by saying it's Unscientific Fact? Then change it.


No because anyone can see it’s common sense I’m not claiming it to be a scientific fact. You should be able to distinguish between the two. Anyone else can – unless they’re a creationist


[edit on 5-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

That's why I have a problem with it.


Why?


If you shouldn't have to qualify that statement then why argue so long about a word that you know perfectly well what it means?

I can say I agree that science considers evolution a fact, until something different is found to be the cause (not saying it will either way). Is that a fair statement? Yes.

Does it make it a fact like the other facts we talked about? No.

That's why.


[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18


until scientists observe something different that proves them facts incorrect


The facts/data is not proven incorrect – nothing is 100% proven. You have to look into mathematics to find complete proof.


then they revise or add to the theory


revise or add to the – data/fact collected. Scientific facts and scientific theories are two different things.


That's why I have a problem with it.


You have a problem with science being science???


Should you have to qualify that by saying it's Unscientific Fact? Then change it.


No because anyone can see it’s common sense I’m not claiming it to be a scientific fact. You should be able to distinguish between the two. Anyone else can – unless they’re a creationist


[edit on 5-3-2009 by andre18]


It's not science I have the problem with, it's their theory of evolution being presented as fact.

Sometimes in science the "fact" is proven wrong. You forgot that part.

I love mathematics, only you can make mistakes, not the math.




[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Scientific facts and scientific theories are two different things.


You posted the above statement read it closely.

Now quit calling "The Theory of Evolution" a fact.

Enough said.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Sometimes in science the "fact" is proven wrong. You forgot that part.


Scientific Facts and Scientific theories are never ‘proven’ - as in absolute proof. And so they are never proven wrong.

darwinwasright.homestead.com...


We can’t prove a theory only because that’s against the rules imposed by the game of science. But we can prove that evolution exists, and that it works, just like we can prove that gravity works, even though it too is ‘just’ a theory and has never been proved.



It's not science I have the problem with, it's their theory of evolution being presented as fact.


You’re still not getting it. The theory is based on facts…………

Joecroft said it best -


when science says evolution is a fact they are talking about the observations of evolution i.e. the observation of the development of species over time, being a fact. They are not stating that the “theory of evolution” to explain those facts (scientific), is an actual complete fact, in dictionary definition terms.


It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity does increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary means.

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance.

It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations.

It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs the same way humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals.

It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development.

It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record.

It is a fact that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to it’s strictest definition, and that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Scientific facts and scientific theories are two different things.

You posted the above statement read it closely.


What i mean by that is scientific facts are only observable data which is completely different to a scientific theory that requres both facts, hypothysis and laws to make it a theory.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

It's not science I have the problem with, it's their theory of evolution being presented as fact.

Sometimes in science the "fact" is proven wrong. You forgot that part.


You’re still not getting it. The theory is based on facts…………

Joecroft said it best -


when science says evolution is a fact they are talking about the observations of evolution i.e. the observation of the development of species over time, being a fact. They are not stating that the “theory of evolution” to explain those facts (scientific), is an actual complete fact, in dictionary definition terms.


It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity does increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary means.

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance.

It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations.

It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs the same way humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals.

It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development.

It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record.

It is a fact that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to it’s strictest definition, and that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed.


[edit on 5-3-2009 by andre18]


I don't care if you list 10 billion facts.

Quit calling "The Theory of Evolution" a fact, you can't according to your own definition.

Like I said earlier that's all I want. That's what my WHOLE argument has been based on.

Then we can move on and speak of science and maybe everybody can learn more together.

deny ignorance



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join